ALKESH PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

In this appeal, the assessee is basically aggrieved for the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld AR of the assessee has drawn our attention to the address mentioned in Form No. 36 and it was Shri Alkesh Parekh Vs ITO contended that notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) was on different address which could not be received by the assessee, therefore, nobody could appear on behalf of the assessee. It was prayed that ex parte order should be set aside.

I have considered the rival contentions and found that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order on 10/01/2019 on the plea that nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. As per the facts narrated by the ld AR the address on which the ld. CIT(A) has sent the notice was changed and no notice could be served on the assessee, therefore, non-appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was on the reasonable ground. In terms of provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal should be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh on merit after providing due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.